Requirement for Income Tax Assessment

[Editors Note: This article was emailed to Truth Sets Us Free without identifying the
author or the source from which it came. We have no indication that the article is
copyrighted in any way.]

Disclaimer
The material in this essay is for educational purposes only and not to be construed as
legal advice about what you should or should not do. The information herein is to assist
you in performing your own due diligence before implementing any strategy. Formal
notice is hereby given that:

You have 10 days after reviewing any material on this web site to notify Truth Sets Us
Free (TSUF) in writing of any word, phrase, reference or statement which is inaccurate,
incorrect, misleading or not in full compliance with state and federal law and to give
TSUF 30 days to correct and cure any alleged potential flaw. TSUF's intent is to be in
strict compliance with the law.

I. Introduction
There is no federal income tax liability until the tax has been assessed. The statutory
requirement for assessments is classified as Section 6203 of the Internal Revenue Code
(26 U.S.C. § 6203), and the controlling regulation is classified as Part 301.6203-1 of Title
26 of the Code of Federal Regulations (26 CFR § 301.6203-1).

Whenever someone billed for federal income taxes makes a request, Internal Revenue
Service personnel are required by statute and regulation to provide a true and correct
copy of the underlying assessment certificate or certificates. There is no statutory or
regulatory authority for substitution of other documents and records. Principal, penalties
and interest must be assessed separately for each tax period. However, in recent years
disclosure officers, revenue officers and other IRS personnel have categorically refused
to provide lawful, procedurally proper assessment certificates. Responses consistently
equivocate and evade the issue with claims that instruments such as the Individual Master
File, Form 4340, and other documents and computer-generated records provide
“presumptive evidence” that assessments have been made. The practice is somewhat on
the order of Satan quoting scripture to Jesus. The presumptive evidence rationale is taken
out of context and for all practical purposes is a cloak for criminal conspiracy.

This reasonably short paper addresses the fallacy of IRS personnel’s failure to comply
with requests for assessment certificates. In addition to the memorandum in Section II, 26
U.S.C. § 6203, 26 CFR § 301.6203-1 and relevant portions of cited cases are reproduced
in Sections III through VII.
II. Requirements for Assessment Certificates & Disclosure
In Brafman v. United States of America, 348 F.2d 863 (5th Circuit, 1967), the court ruled
in favor of the plaintiff because an assessment officer did not sign a certificate of
assessment:

We [**5] do not reach the complex and tantalizing issue of a trust-fund theory of
transferee liability for the transfer of a contingent insurance interest. The threshold issue
of the validity of the assessment is crucial. We reverse on the ground that a valid
assessment against the transferor's estate was not made, because of an assessment
officer's failure [*865] to sign the certificate of assessment. The Government's claim
against the transferee is proscribed by the statute of limitations governing this action.

The assessment certificate was introduced into evidence in the Brafman case. Because the
assessment officer didn’t sign it, the plaintiff won the suit.

Per 26 CFR § 301.6203-1, the assessment certificate must comply with and include the
following:

The summary record of assessment, through support documents, shall,

1. Provide identification of the taxpayer;

2. Identify the character of the tax liability (class or kind);

3. The tax period, if applicable;

4. The amount of the assessment;

5. The amount of the assessment shall be that shown on a return if a return has
been filed, or the amount reflected on the supporting list or record if no return is
filed; and

6. The date of the assessment is the date the assessment is signed by the
assessment officer.

The regulation stipulates that, “If the taxpayer requests a copy of the record of
assessment, he shall be furnished a copy of the pertinent parts of the assessment which set
forth the name of the taxpayer, the date of assessment, the character of the liability
assessed, the taxable period, if applicable, and the amounts assessed.”

The statute requires that, “Upon request of the taxpayer, the Secretary shall furnish the
taxpayer a copy of the record of the assessment.”

Where the statue requires the Secretary to provide a copy of the actual record of
assessment (assessment certificate), the regulation must conform. There is no provision
for substituting something other than the actual assessment certificate: therefore, the
regulation must be construed to comply with the statutory mandate. Possibly some
elements included on the physical assessment certificate that are not required to execute a
lawful, procedurally proper summary record of assessment can be redacted, but a copy
requested by a taxpayer must include “the pertinent parts of the assessment which set
forth the name of the taxpayer, the date of assessment, the character of the liability
assessed, the taxable period, if applicable, and the amounts assessed.” Since the date of
assessment is the date it is signed, the assessment officer signature is a mandatory
element of the assessment certificate that must be provided on request.

A 1987 case decided in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Alabama clouded the assessment certificate issue and the acceptability of secondary
evidence such as the Form 4340. However, the case did not change requirements of the
statute or the regulation. The Dixon case, infra, is the one IRS personnel rely on to avoid
the mandate for providing assessment certificates when someone requests them.

The case involved a unique situation where litigation to resolve disputed liabilities
stretched out over a long enough period that the Internal Revenue Service had supposedly
destroyed assessment certificates that established the disputed liabilities. At the time, IRS
was only required to keep assessment certificates on file for six years and nine months
after they were executed. The assessment certificate in question had allegedly been
destroyed prior to the defendants commencing the discovery process. As a consequence,
the court accepted secondary evidence that the assessment had been made because the
defendants could not produce credible evidence to default the claim.

The case is United States of America v. Dixon, 672 F.Supp. 503 (USDC, Middle Dist.
Ala., 1987). The judge explained the decision as follows:

The defendant correctly contends that the basis of tax liability is the assessment. For a tax
liability to be duly collected, it must be first properly assessed. In order for a tax
deficiency to be assessed against a taxpayer, an assessment officer must sign and date a
Form 23-C. The defendant rests his argument entirely on the fact that the Government
has not been able to produce a copy of or the original of Form 23-C, and has, supposedly,
stipulated to its non-existence.

The Government argues that its failure to produce Form 23-C is not fatal to its case. First,
the Government states that it stipulated only to the fact that it did not have the original or
a copy of Form 23-C in its possession. The Government originally stated that the IRS
keeps Form 23-C in its files for only three years, after which it is routinely sent to the
Federal Records Center to be stored for thirty years. The Government's attorney has since
learned that this is the present procedure, but that in 1979 when the assessment was
entered, the IRS kept these forms for six years, nine months, after which they were
routinely destroyed. Accordingly, the defendant is correct that the Government does not
have in its possession the Form 23-C.
The Government argues, however, that it does not need to produce a copy of Form 23-C
in order to satisfy its burden of proof. The Government has attached a copy of a
"Certificate of Assessments and Payments" which is signed by an IRS officer certifying
that it is a true transcript of all the assessments, penalties, interest, and payments on
record for the defendant. This document reflects that on April 15, 1976 the defendant
filed a tax return claiming and paying $118,728.45 in taxes. This document also reflects
that the defendant was audited and assessed a deficiency of $ 159,871.02 in unpaid taxes,
$ 7,993.55 in negligence penalty, and $ 34,247.44 in interest on July 23, 1979. n1

Accordingly, this Court accepts the document "Certificate of Assessments and Payments"
submitted by the Government as presumptive proof of a valid assessment. Given that the
defendant has produced no evidence to counter this presumption, the Court is satisfied
that the Government has established that the claimed tax liability was properly assessed
against the defendant.

In the absence of any direct evidence contradicting the Government's position, the
presumption of official regularity controls. "The presumption of regularity supports the
official acts of public officers and, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts
presume that they have properly discharged their official duties." (Emphasis added)
United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc., 272 U.S. 1, 71 L. Ed. 131, 47 S. Ct. 1 (1926)
and United States v. Ahrens, 530 F.2d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1976).

The Dixon downfall was failing to request a copy of the assessment certificate prior to
the destruction date. Had they timely requested a copy under authority of 26 U.S.C. §
6203 and 26 CFR § 301.6203-1, failure of IRS personnel to furnish an assessment
certificate would have been evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption. In Hughes
v. United States of America, 953 F.2d 531 (9th Cir.,1991), the court shed light on
consequences for failure to request assessment certificates:

In an attempt to establish the first prong of the Elias exception, the Hugheses first argue
that the IRS failed to make a valid assessment against them so that all current IRS actions
to collect from them are unlawful. Thus, the Hugheses argue, the IRS could never
succeed on the merits of its claim. We reject this argument.

The IRS submitted Certificates of Assessments and Payments (Form 4340) as proof that
assessments had been made. Official certificates, such as Form 4340, can constitute proof
of the [**8] fact that the assessments actually were made. See United States v. Zolla, 724
F.2d 808, 810 (9th Cir.) (postal form 3877 certifying mailing of deficiency notices and an
IRS form certifying that taxes and failure-to-pay penalties had been assessed are "official
certificates" that "are highly probative, and are sufficient, in the absence of contrary
evidence, to establish that the notices and assessments were properly made"), cert.
denied, 469 U.S. 830, 83 L. Ed. 2d 59, 105 S. Ct. 116 (1984); United States v. Chila, 871
F.2d 1015, 1017-18 (11th Cir.) (Certificate of Assessments and Payments is presumptive
proof of a valid assessment), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975, 107 L. Ed. 2d 501, 110 S. Ct.
498 (1989). n2 Because Form 4340 is an official document which establishes that
assessments were made, and because the Hugheses have presented no contrary evidence
indicating that assessments were not made, the Hugheses' argument fails.

Finally, the Hugheses' allegation that the IRS never furnished them with a copy of the
record of assessment after being requested to do so also is insufficient to support a claim
under § 2410. 26 U.S.C. § 6203 requires that the Secretary provide a taxpayer with a copy
of the record of assessment if requested to do so. The Hugheses, however, have presented
no evidence that, at the time the various assessments were being made, they ever
requested a copy of the record of assessment. [**20] Because the Hugheses presented no
evidence that they made such a request, they cannot now argue that the IRS failed to
follow statutory procedures by neglecting to provide the Hugheses with the required
copy. n4 The Hugheses' § 2410 claim fails, therefore, because of the absence of any
evidence that the IRS's tax liens were procedurally defective. n5

The controlling statute and regulation impose a duty on the Secretary and his delegate to
perform a specific task. On request, IRS personnel responsible for disclosure are required
to provide copies of assessment certificates in compliance with the regulatory mandate or
verify that they do not exist, i.e., that lawful, procedurally proper assessment certificates
were never executed. In order to trigger the duty, the request must be made. IRS must
give 10-day notice and demand for payment within a certain time after assessments have
been made (26 CFR § 301.6303-1), but assessment certificates are simply filed when and
if they are made. If someone does not request copies, assessment certificates are for all
practical purposes internal documents. Under current law, they must be maintained on
file for ten years and nine months.

The requirement for IRS to provide assessment certificates was cleared up by the court in
Huff v. United States of America, 10 F.3d 1440 (9th Cir.,1993):

The district court ruled erroneously that count II did not present a procedural challenge to
a tax lien. However, count II alleges that the IRS failed properly to assess taxes against
the Huffs and that the IRS failed to respond to the Huffs' request for a copy of an
assessment under § 6203. See 26 C.F.R. § 301.6203-1 (1992) (indicating that § 6203
requires the IRS to send the taxpayer "a copy of the pertinent parts of the assessment
which set forth the name of the taxpayer, the date of assessment, the character of the
liability assessed, the taxable period, if applicable, and the amounts assessed" if the
taxpayer makes a request for a copy of the assessment pursuant to § 6203).

Generally, courts have held that IRS Form 4340 provides at least presumptive evidence
that a tax has been validly assessed under § 6203. See Farr, 990 F.2d at 454; Geiselman
v. United States, 961 F.2d 1, 5-6 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 121 L. Ed. 2d 191, 113 S. Ct. 261
(1992); Rocovich v. United States, 933 F.2d 991, 994 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("Certificates of
Assessments and Payments [are] routinely used to prove that a tax assessment has in fact
been made."); United States v. Chila, 871 F.2d 1015, 1017-18 (11th Cir.), cert. denied,
493 U.S. 975, 107 L. Ed. 2d 501, 110 S. Ct. 498 (1989); United States v. Miller, 318 F.2d
637, 638-39 (7th Cir. 1963). Here, however, the IRS seeks to rely solely on these forms
to prove not only that an assessment had been validly made, but that the taxpayer had
been provided with a copy of the assessment as per Treasury Regulation § 301.6203-1.
We are unaware of any authority indicating that these forms standing alone constitute
evidence for the latter proposition. Indeed, no entry on the form contains any information
in this regard.

Moreover, in Farr this court ruled that Forms 4340 are merely presumptive, not
conclusive, evidence that the IRS has complied with § 6203. Farr, 990 F.2d at 454. The
court ruled that the fact that the taxpayer claimed not to have received certain notices
precluded the court from granting judgment against the taxpayer in that case. Id. Here,
the Huffs similarly claim that they never received any Form 4340 in response to their
request for a copy of their assessments. While the government may have proved that
Forms 4340 existed for the Huffs for the 1982 tax year, the record is devoid of any
indication that the Huffs were provided with copies of these forms in response to their
request for a copy of their assessments.

In addition, some of the Forms 4340 provided by the government to support the grant of
summary judgment in this case appear defective. Courts have indicated that a Form 4340
is adequate to prove a valid assessment if it lists the "23C date," indicating the date on
which the actual assessment was made. n5 See Geiselman, 961 F.2d at 5-6 (indicating
that the government could prove a valid assessment by providing a Form 4340 instead of
a Form 23C, the actual assessment forms, because the Form 4340 listed the 23C dates);
Brewer v. United States, 764 F. Supp. 309, 315-16 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (holding that an issue
of fact exists regarding the method of assessment when the IRS relies on Forms 4340 that
do not list 23C dates). Here, the 4340 Form for Maurice Huff's 1982 tax year did not list
any 23C dates. Accordingly, we conclude that the IRS could not rely solely on those
forms to prove that Mr. Huff's tax was validly assessed.

Given the defect in the Forms 4340 and the fact that the record contains no evidence
indicating that the Huffs received copies of their assessments pursuant to their request
under § 6203, we conclude there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the IRS
has complied with the requirements of § 6203. See Farr, 990 F.2d at 454; Geiselman,
961 F.2d at 5-6; Brewer, 764 F. Supp. at 315-16. Accordingly, we reverse the district
court's grant of summary judgment as to count II.

The Huff decision must be understood in the context of the 26 U.S.C. § 6203 performance
mandate: “Upon request of the taxpayer, the Secretary shall furnish the taxpayer a copy
of the record of assessment.” Regardless of flaws in the Form 4340, RACS 006, etc., IRS
personnel have a duty to provide copies of assessment certificates, possibly with non-
essential information redacted, when requested. Once the Huffs verified that they
requested assessment certificates and that IRS personnel failed to comply with the
request, IRS defaulted subject matter jurisdiction due to depriving them of procedural due
process rights.

In the event responsible IRS personnel fail to comply with requests for assessment
certificates, performance can be compelled by writ of mandamus. The court made note of
this remedy being employed by the plaintiff in Essex v. Vinal, et al, 499 F.2d 226 (8th
Cir., 1974):

A claim for refund of the above amounts was made to the Commissioner September 14,
1970. On December 13, 1970, this claim was disallowed. As to the $55,000 and the
$5,158.73 payments, the reason for denial was that the statute of limitations in Int. Rev.
Code of 1954, § 6511 n3 had expired. The refund claim for the $13,372.40 deficiency
was also denied by the Commissioner and a suit for refund of this payment, for which a
timely refund claim had been made, is presently pending in federal district court. The
plaintiff also, [**4] prior to the instant action, filed a suit in the district court for a writ of
mandamus to compel the Internal Revenue Service to release its assessment records.
Upon voluntary compliance this suit was dismissed by the District Court. The dismissal
was affirmed on appeal under Local Rule 14. Essex v. Walters, 475 F.2d 1407 (8th Cir.),
cert. denied, 412 U.S. 919, 37 L. Ed. 2d 144, 93 S. Ct. 2732 (1973).

Congress strengthened the mandate for compliance via § 1203 of the Internal Revenue
Service reform and restructuring act of 1998. The section requires Internal Revenue
Service personnel to comply with duties imposed by the Internal Revenue Code, Treasury
regulations and published policy, including the Internal Revenue Manual. This is an
important provision as it expands the compliance requirement to published policy as well
as duties imposed by statutes and regulations.

At § 3.17.46.2.4(1), the Internal Revenue Manual provides the following definition:

"Assessment Certificate: To impose a tax as authorized by the Internal Revenue Code,
Assessments are supported by a summary record of assessment signed by an appointed
assessment officer." At § 3.17.46.2.4(1), the IRM further specifies, "All assessments
must be certified by signature of an authorized official on the Summary Record of
Assessment (Form 23C, Assessment Certificate-Summary Record of Assessments). A
signed Summary Record of Assessment authorizes issuance of notice and other collection
actions (refer to IRC Regulations 301.6203-1)." In Sections 3.17.63.14.7 through
3.17.63.14.21, the IRM specifies that there must be an assessment for each instance of tax
principal, interest and penalty. Elsewhere, the Internal Revenue Manual stipulates that
when copies of assessment certificates are requested, IRS personnel responsible for
disclosure must provide them.

The Brafman court, supra, stated another obvious truism:

The Treasury Regulations are binding on the Government as well as on the taxpayer:
"Tax officials and taxpayers alike are under the law, not above it." Pacific National Bank
of Seattle v. Commissioner, 9 Cir. 1937, 91 F.2d 103, 105. n7 Even the instructions on
the reverse side of the assessment certificate, Form 23C, specify that the original form "is
to be transmitted to the District Director for signature, after which it will be returned to
the Accounting [**10] Branch for permanent filing. * * *"

Case after case has quoted Treasury Regulation § 301.6203-1 and cited it approvingly,
and the treatises on taxation take its literal application for granted.
Criminal penalties for demanding payment of sums other and greater than legitimate tax
obligations, and for failing to carry out duties prescribed by law, predate the 1998
restructuring act. Two subsections in 26 U.S.C. § 7214 speak to the matter:

§ 7214. Offenses by officers and employees of the United States.

(a) Unlawful acts of revenue officers and agents.

Any officer or employee of the United States acting in connection with any revenue law
of the United States –

(2) who knowingly demands other or greater sums than are authorized by law, or receives
any fee, compensation, or reward, except as by law prescribed, for the performance of
any duty; or

(3) who with intent to defeat the application of any provision of this title fails to perform
any of the duties of his office or employment; . . .

shall be dismissed from office or discharged from employment and, upon conviction
thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or
both. . . . The court also shall render judgment against the said officer or employee for the
amount of damages sustained in favor of the party injured, to be collected by execution.

There is no liability for federal income tax unless or until there is a lawful, procedurally
proper assessment certificate executed in compliance with requirements of 26 CFR §
301.6203-1. In the event that someone who is billed for an alleged federal income tax
debt requests a copy of the assessment certificate to validate the debt, IRS disclosure
personnel are obligated to provide a verified copy or certify that there is no valid
assessment certificate. Once put on notice, revenue agents and other Internal Revenue
Service personnel responsible for collecting tax debts are required to make inquiry
reasonable under the circumstance to verify that lawful, procedurally proper assessment
certificates have been executed. Individual Master Files, the Form 4340 and other such
documents and records provide presumptive evidence, but only the lawful, procedurally
proper assessment certificate itself constitutes conclusive evidence. When and if Internal
Revenue Service personnel act individually or in concert to evade, avoid or defeat the
duty prescribed by 26 U.S.C. § 6203, they are subject to penalties prescribed by 26
U.S.C. § 7214(a).

III. Internal Revenue Code Assessment Section

26 USCS § 6203 (2001)

§ 6203. Method of assessment.

The assessment shall be made by recording the liability of the taxpayer in the office of
the Secretary in accordance with rules or regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Upon
request of the taxpayer, the Secretary shall furnish the taxpayer a copy of the record of
the assessment.

HISTORY; ANCILLARY LAWS AND DIRECTIVES

Amendments:

In 1976, P.L. 94-455, Sec. 1906(b)(13)(A), substituted "Secretary" for "Secretary or his
delegate" each place it appeared in Code Sec. 6203, effective 2/1/77.

NOTES:

CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Department of the Treasury--Procedure and

administration, 27 CFR Part 70.

CROSS REFERENCES

USCS Administrative Rules, IRS, 26 CFR § § 601.103, 601.104, 601.106.

Authorization of Secretary of Treasury to prescribe rules and regulations, 26 USCS §

7805.

IV. Code of Federal Regulations Assessment Requirement

26 CFR 301.6203-1

§ 301.6203-1 Method of assessment.

The district director and the director of the regional service center shall appoint one or
more assessment officers. The district director shall also appoint assessment officers in a
Service Center servicing his district. The assessment shall be made by an assessment
officer signing the summary record of assessment. The summary record, through
supporting records, shall provide identification of the taxpayer, the character of the
liability assessed, the taxable period, if applicable, and the amount of the assessment. The
amount of the assessment shall, in the case of tax shown on a return by the taxpayer, be
the amount so shown, and in all other cases the amount of the assessment shall be the
amount shown on the supporting list or record. The date of the assessment is the date the
summary record is signed by an assessment officer. If the taxpayer requests a copy of the
record of assessment, he shall be furnished a copy of the pertinent parts of the assessment
which set forth the name of the taxpayer, the date of assessment, the character of the
liability assessed, the taxable period, if applicable, and the amounts assessed.

V. Lexis Annotations for 26 U.S.C. § 6203

Summary record of assessment bearing signature of IRS assessment officer accompanied
by signed certificate of assessments and payments that identifies taxpayer by name,
address, and social security number, establishes nature of tax liabilities, period of
liabilities, date of assessment, and amount to be assessed is sufficient to establish nexus
between taxpayer and underlying assessments. Gentry v United States (1992, CA6 Tenn)
92-1 USTC P 50225, 69 AFTR 2d 92-1158.

Partner must be individually assessed before becoming liable for partnership's unpaid
employment taxes, and where partners are not individually assessed within 3 year period,
collection actions against partners are time barred. United States v Briguglio (In re
Briguglio) (2001, CD Cal) 2001-1 USTC P 50360, 87 AFTR 2d 1639.

Date of assessment is date when summary record is signed by assessment officer in

district director's office or in service center. Welch Ins. Agency v Brast (1932, CA4 W Va)
55 F2d 60, 10 AFTR 1041, cert den 285 US 555, 76 L Ed 944, 52 S Ct 457; Davidovitz v
United States (1932) 75 Ct Cl 211, 58 F2d 1063, 11 AFTR 347.

Assessment is complete as soon as record is signed by assessment officer. Filippini v

United States (1961, ND Cal) 200 F Supp 286, 62-1 USTC P 9144, 9 AFTR 2d 313, affd
(CA9 Cal) 318 F2d 841, 63-2 USTC P 9548, 11 AFTR 2d 1720, cert den 375 US 922, 11
L Ed 2d 165, 84 S Ct 267.

Assessment of estate tax deficiency was not timely filed and was invalid where it had not
been signed by the proper official, and the authenticity of the document and admissibility
at trial had no effect on the validity where the requisite signature was missing. Brafman v
United States (1967, CA5 Fla) 384 F2d 863, 67-2 USTC P 12494, 20 AFTR 2d 6008.

VI. Additional Court Cites Concerning Assessments

Radinsky v. United States of America, 622 F.Supp. 412 (USDC, Colorado, 1985)

This is an action brought by Albert and Henrietta Radinsky to recover $ 8,012.17

wrongfully collected by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) under threat of levy. The
facts in the action are undisputed and set forth in the Memorandum Opinion and Order of
May 2, 1985, denying the United States' motion to dismiss, and are incorporated herein
by reference. The matter is now before the court on the parties' cross motions [**2] for
summary judgment.
 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1) confers jurisdiction upon this court and waives the sovereign
immunity of the United States regarding claims for sums wrongfully collected under the
internal revenue laws. In a suit under this section, a plaintiff "may challenge the
constitutionality, legality or fairness of any tax statute or amount assessed or collected."
White v. C.I.R., 537 F.Supp 679 (D.Colo. 1982). In the two briefs filed in this action, the
IRS has not explained where it finds statutory authority to employ its tax collection
procedures to collect from the plaintiffs a sum of money that has never been assessed as a
tax. Since the IRS had no authority to adjust the plaintiffs' account or employ deficiency
procedures in these circumstances, it is self-evident that the collection of the sum in this
manner was wrongful.

Goetz v. United States of America, 286 F.Supp. 128 (USDC, Western M0, 1968)

Plaintiffs instituted this suit against the defendant for the return of the sum of $8,367.80
paid by the plaintiffs to the Internal Revenue Service following statutory notice of
deficiency of income tax alleged to be due against the estate of M. Karl Goetz and Nancy
R. Goetz, his widow.

In their complaint the plaintiffs base their right to recovery upon the ground first, that
the money upon which the Government seeks to recover the [**3] tax was a gift under
Section 102(a) I.R.C. 1954 n1 to plaintiff Nancy R. Goetz and not subject to tax, and
second, that the assessment of the tax was not made until after the statute of limitations,
Section 6501(a) Title 26 U.S.C. n2 had expired.

This action was instituted by the plaintiffs to recover the amount of the assessment
together with the interest, on July 5, 1967.

It is the contention of the plaintiffs in their Motion for Summary Judgment that
regardless of the fact that the money in question was transferred to the Service prior to
the running of the statute of limitations, that said money was not due or owing until it had
been properly assessed as a tax liability and that such an assessment was not made until a
time after the statute of limitations had expired. (Although we have before us two
different dates on which it is claimed that the assessment was made, both of those dates
are admittedly beyond the period of limitations, and therefore have no bearing on the
legal question which is before us.)

The defendant, on the other hand, contends that Title 26 § 6401(a) n6 which entitles
[*131] the taxpayer to recover any amount "assessed or collected after the expiration of
the period of limitation" does not embrace amounts had and received before the running
of that period, or in other [**9] words, that there has been an actual payment of taxes
duly collected. With this interpretation we cannot agree.

It does not follow from the fact that the Service had the taxpayers' money in hand
prior to the running of the statute of limitations, that the money was duly collected. In
order for the tax liability to have been duly collected, it must have been properly assessed
and such was not the case here in that the assessment was made at a time subsequent to
the running of the statute of limitations.

It is this reasoning which apparently impelled the defendant to admit that the
plaintiffs are entitled to recover the $1,736.20 interest payment in that said payment was
not in the hands of the Service [**10] prior to the running of the statute (nor was it in
their hands prior to its assessment).

We cannot accept the distinction that the defendant would have us draw, that the
mailing of plaintiffs' check in response to the statutory notice of deficiency amounted to a
payment and that, therefore, the tax in question was duly collected. On the contrary, we
believe that plaintiffs' check served as a deposit to be utilized by the Government in the
event a tax obligation were subsequently defined and imposed.

We are persuaded in so holding by the reasoning of the court in Rosenman v. U.S.,

323 U.S. 658, 65 S. Ct. 536, 89 L. Ed. 535 (1945) which recognized that payments prior
to assessment are deposits and not payments of taxes duly collected.

In the Rosenman case, supra, it was the Government that was attempting to invoke a
similar statute of limitation to bar suit by the plaintiff for refund, whereas, in the instant
case, we have the reverse of that situation, in that here we have the taxpayer seeking to
utilize the statute as an affirmative basis for relief.

Though the two cases differ in that respect, the reasoning of the court as to the effect
of the transfer of funds prior to any [**11] assessment of a tax obligation in regard
thereto is sound and is applicable to both situations. We believe that the holding of the
court, that money paid to the Internal Revenue Service prior to the imposition of a valid
assessment is a deposit rather than a payment, should have the same meaning regardless
of whether it is the Government who seeks to preclude suit by the taxpayer or whether it
is the taxpayer who seeks to recover a refund.

In U.S. v. Dubuque Packing Company, 233 F.2d 453 (8th Cir. 1956) the court
followed the Rosenman case, supra, and held that transfers of money in anticipation of
further assessments did not have the status of payments until tax deficiencies were
formally assessed by the commissioner. This case like Rosenman but unlike the instant
case, involved a situation where the Government was contending that the two year statute
of limitations as to plaintiff's suit for refund of overpayment of a deficiency began to run
when the plaintiff transferred funds to the commissioner prior to the making of any
assessment.

IT IS THEREFORE, our conclusion that the statute of limitations had expired at the time
the assessment was made, and that the plaintiffs [**12] are entitled to recover the
amounts paid to the Internal Revenue Service prior thereto, and that the Motion for
Summary Judgment should be and is sustained.

United States of America v. Miller, 318 F.2d 637 (7th Circuit, 1963)
 Appellant argues that the proposed waiver submitted by the administrator and the
written acceptance thereof by the Government constituted a binding contract and an
assessment which commenced the running of the statute of limitations, n1 or at least that
a genuine issue of material fact as to the meaning of the waiver and acceptance was
presented which could be properly adjudicated only by a trial on the merits.

We do not agree.

We think it clear that the term 'assessment' referred to in this section of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954 has [*639] a technical meaning spelled out in the Code and that
meaning is binding on this court. n2

The district court properly considered the copy of the official Certificate of
Assessments and Payments submitted by the Government in ruling on the motion for
summary judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 1733(b); and Rule 44(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. That document
shows that assessment entries were made on March 8, and April 13, 1956, in the manner
prescribed by the statute and the applicable regulation. Since the [**5] present suit was
filed by the Government on March 2, 1962, it was not barred by the applicable statute of
limitations.

Brafman v. United States of America, 384 F.2d 863 (5th Cir., 1967)

We [**5] do not reach the complex and tantalizing issue of a trust-fund theory of
transferee liability for the transfer of a contingent insurance interest. The threshold issue
of the validity of the assessment is crucial. We reverse on the ground that a valid
assessment against the transferor's estate was not made, because of an assessment
officer's failure [*865] to sign the certificate of assessment. The Government's claim
against the transferee is proscribed by the statute of limitations governing this action.

For a tax to be collected upon any deficiency, an assessment must be made against the
taxpayer within three years after his return is filed. Int. Rev. Code of 1939, § 874 (§ 6501
of the 1954 Code). The mailing of a ninety-day letter of deficiency or the filing of any
court action will suspend the running of the statute of limitations, and the time will not
begin to run again until sixty days from the entry of final judgment of that court or until
ninety days following the mailing of the letter of deficiency if no proceedings are begun.
See Int. Rev. Code of 1954, § 6213. In the case of a transferee, a separate section
provides that the assessment must be filed [**6] against the transferee within one year
after the expiration of the period of limitation for assessment against the original
transferor. Int. Rev. Code of 1939, § 900(b)(1) (§ 6901(c)(1) of the 1954 Code)

If the estate is not assessed within the statutory period there can be no transferee
liability. United States v. Updike, 1930, 281 U.S. 489, 50 S. Ct. 367, 74 L. Ed. 984. For
the Government to collect any tax from the transferee, Mrs. Brafman, a valid assessment
must have been made against the estate of the transferor, Abraham Lazarowitz, by
September 28, 1957.
 There is no disagreement that if the assessment against the estate was made on July
23, 1956, as the Government argues and the documents apparently indicate, the
assessment of the transferor was timely. Mrs. Brafman contends, however, that no valid
assessment was made on July 23, 1956, because the assessment certificate was not
signed.

Section 6203 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 specifies that an assessment n4
shall be made by recording the liability of the taxpayer in the office of the Secretary or
his delegate in accordance with rules or regulations prescribed by the Secretary or his
delegate.

The Treasury [**7] Regulations set forth the procedures governing the assessment
process as follows:

The District Director shall appoint one or more assessment officers, and the
assessment shall be made by an assessment officer signing the summary record of
assessment. The summary record, through supporting records, shall provide identification
of the taxpayer, the character of the liability assessed, the taxable period if applicable,
and the amount of the assessment. The amount of the assessment shall in the case of tax
shown on a return by the taxpayer, be the amount so shown, and in all other cases the
amount of the assessment shall be the amount shown on the supporting list or record. The
date of the assessment is the date the summary record is signed by an assessment officer.
* * * Treas. Reg. § 301.6203-1 (1955)(emphasis added.)

The assessment certificate involved in this case, a photostated copy of which is in the
record, is not signed by an assessment officer or by any other official. The certificate
refers to July 23, 1956, but shows that it was "prepared" August 1, 1956. Apparently this
is the [*866] date on which the assessment was to be formally certified, as it appears
twice in the certification portion of the form. Since the certificate lacks the requisite
signature, it cannot constitute a valid assessment.

We are not moved by the Government's argument that the assessment was valid and
effective on July 23rd because it is certified for authenticity under the seal of the United
States Treasury. There is no question as to the authenticity of the document or its
admissibility into evidence. n5 But authenticity of the certificate cannot be equated with
validity of the assessment on the alleged date: a seal establishes the former, a signature of
the assessment officer -- as required by the Treasury Regulations -- establishes the latter.

We find section 301.6203-1 of the Treasury Regulations reasonably adapted to carry

out the intent of Congress as reflected in § 6203 of the Code. n6 We therefore adhere to
our pronouncement in United States v. Fisher, 5 Cir. 1965, 353 F.2d 396, 398-399, that:

In the absence of any better test, we give effect to the generally recognized rule that
Regulations issued by the Secretary of the Treasury, pursuant to statutory authority, and
when necessary to make a statute effective, although not a statute, may have the force of
law. Fawcus Machine Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 375, 51 S. Ct. 144, 75 L. Ed. 397;
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. South Texas Lumber Co., 333 U.S. 496, 501, 68 S.
Ct. 695, 92 L. Ed. 831.

The Treasury Regulations are binding on the Government as well as on the taxpayer:
"Tax officials and taxpayers alike are under the law, not above it." Pacific National Bank
of Seattle v. Commissioner, 9 Cir. 1937, 91 F.2d 103, 105. n7 Even the instructions on
the reverse side of the assessment certificate, Form 23C, specify that the original form "is
to be transmitted to the District Director for signature, after which it will be returned to
the Accounting [**10] Branch for permanent filing. * * *"

Case after case has quoted Treasury Regulation § 301.6203-1 and cited it
approvingly, and the treatises on taxation take its literal application for granted. n8 In
United States v. Miller, 7 Cir. 1963, 318 F.2d 637, the administrator of an estate executed
an estate tax Waiver of Restrictions on Assessment, which was accepted by the
Commissioner on February 16, 1956. The Commissioner made assessments by certificate
on March 8 and April 13, 1956. Suit for collection was not brought until March 2, 1962.
An intervenor argued on appeal that acceptance of the waiver amounted to assessment
which commenced the running of the statute of limitations. The Court rejected this [**11]
argument, saying that "assessment", as referred to in § 6502 of the Code, "has a technical
meaning spelled out in the Code and that [*867] meaning is binding on this court." n9
The Court continued:

The district court properly considered the copy of the official Certificate of
Assessments and Payments submitted by the Government in ruling on the motion for
summary judgment. * * That document shows that assessment entries were made on
March 8, and April 13, 1956, in the manner prescribed by the statute and the applicable
regulation. Since the present suit was filed by the Government on March 2, 1962, it was
not barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 318 F.2d at 639, (emphasis added).

When § 6203 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was before Congress, the detailed
discussions of the proposed section in both the House and Senate was substantially the
same:

This section is a substantial clarification of existing law. It provides that the

assessments shall be made by recording the liability of the taxpayer in accordance with
rules or regulations of the Secretary. This will permit recording of liability, and hence
assessment, through machine operations [**13] or through any other modern procedure.
The Secretary is directed to furnish to the taxpayer, upon request, a copy of the record of
the assessment of that taxpayer's liability. n10

It appears to us that the requirement of the applicable Treasury Regulation -- that an

assessment officer sign the assessment certificate -- is consistent with the literally
mechanical procedures for recording of liability. The recordation is to be accomplished
through "machine operations", but the actual and final assessment step, that step which
establishes a prima facie case of taxpayer liability, n11 can be taken only with the
approval of a responsible officer of the Internal Revenue Service. The Government may
want to postpone assessment in certain cases because of the limitations on collection and
lien perfection that begin to run at the time of assessment. [**14] This might be
accomplished, after the computers have run their course, only by the assessment officer
refusing to sign the already prepared certificate. n12 What is important in any case is that
assessment is not automatic upon recordation; it requires the action of an assessment
officer. That action, as defined explicitly in the Treasury Regulations, is the signing of
the certificate.

We recognize that in sustaining Mrs. Brafman's contention regarding lack of proper

assessment within the limitations period we are disposing of this case on what could be
termed a "technical defense". As the district court said in [*868] United States v. Lehigh,
W.D. Ark. 1961, 201 F. Supp. 224, 234, this [**15] is both true and immaterial:

Any procedural defense is in a sense "technical." The procedures set forth in the Internal
Revenue Code were prescribed for the protection of both Government and taxpayer.
Neglect to comply with those procedures may entail consequences which the neglecting
party must be prepared to face, whether such party be the taxpayer or the Government.

Certainly the courts have not hesitated to enforce strictly the Code requirement that a
taxpayer's returns must be signed to be effective. Thus, unsigned returns, even with
remittances, have been viewed as nullities from the standpoint of imposition of penalties
n13 and of commencement of the running of the statute of limitations. n14 It has availed
the taxpayer little that his failure to sign was inadvertent. n15

Finally, where state taxation is involved compliance with a statutory provision requiring
an assessment list to be signed by the assessors is usually considered essential to the
validity of further proceedings. 84 C.J.S. Taxation § 473 (1954).

Girard Trust Bank, et al v. United States, 643 F.2d 725 (Ct. of Claims, 1981)

Section 6401 does not define an "overpayment," but does provide that the term "includes"
certain enumerated items which will be treated as or "considered" overpayments. An
"overpayment" is not necessarily a form of "payment." It can be the "amount" by which
an "amount allowable as credits" exceeds "the tax imposed." n6 Use of the term "the tax
imposed" rather than "the liability for tax," disposes of any argument that an
overpayment, for purposes of section 6611, necessarily occurs with respect to an interim
liability. In fact, under the provisions of section 6401(c), an amount paid as tax may
constitute an "overpayment" even though there was no tax "liability" in respect of which
such amount was paid. On the other hand, one may not unilaterally establish an
"overpayment" by the "deposit" of money with the district director in "payment" of an
amount designated as a "tax." n7 "Liability" and amounts "due" normally depend upon
"assessment," and the latter is entirely a Government, not a taxpayer, function. n8 Thus
an actual "liability" can eventually constitute an "overpayment" for the reason that the
"tax imposed" by law, which [*370] is to say the correct amount [***9] of the "entire tax
liability" as finally determined, is less than the total of the amounts paid by or credited to
the taxpayer, as tax. This is not to say that the "overpayment" does not occur until the
final determination of the tax; it merely means that there cannot be an ascertainment that
there has been an overpayment of tax until the "tax imposed" has been ascertained.

Bothke v. Fluor Engineers and Constructors, Inc., 713 F.2d 1405 (9th Cir., 1982)

For a levy to be statutorily authorized in the circumstances here, two conditions must
be fulfilled. First, a 10-day notice of intent to levy must have issued. See 26 U.S.C. §
6331(a). Terry ascertained that this had been done. Second, the taxpayer must be liable
for the tax. Id. Tax liability is a condition precedent to the demand. Merely demanding
payment, even repeatedly, does not cause liability.

For the condition precedent of liability to be met, there must be a lawful assessment,
either a voluntary one by the taxpayer or one procedurally proper by the IRS. Because
this country's income tax system is based on voluntary self-assessment, rather than
distraint, Flora v. United States [**25] , 362 U.S. 145, 176, 4 L. Ed. 2d 623, 80 S. Ct.
630 (1960), the Service may assess the tax only in certain circumstances and in
conformity with proper procedures.

Essex v. Vinal, et al, 499 F.2d 226 (8th Cir., 1974)

The asserted noncompliance with the regulation is the allegation that those officers
who signed the assessment certificates were not in fact "assessment officers." Accepting
arguendo that this is so, we find nothing in Rosenman or Brafman to support the
plaintiff's legal contention that the assessments are thus [**10] void and the payments
converted to deposits subject to recovery in the instant suit.

In Rosenman, the Commissioner's claim was that the date of a $120,000 advance
payment should govern the running of the statute of limitations for filing a claim for
refund. This contention was rejected because the payment had been held in a special
suspense account and was not considered as "payment" until the amount of tax due was
actually assessed by Internal Revenue. There is no doubt that had the deposit been
assessed upon receipt as was done in the present case, it would have been considered
"payment" at that time.

Brafman is closer to plaintiff's position. In Brafman, the Commissioner in 1962

attempted to impose transferee liability for estate taxes upon a beneficiary of the estate of
a decedent who died in 1951. This liability was predicated upon an assessment certificate
prepared August 1, 1956, after a Tax Court decision in favor of the Government. The
Brafman court began with the proposition that there could be no transferee liability if
there was no assessment within the statutory period, which in Brafman terminated
September 28, 1957. The assessment certificate [**11] of August 1, 1956, was unsigned.
Treas. Reg. § 301.6203-1, supra, was interpreted to require signature on the assessment
certificate. An unsigned certificate was determined to be wholly void, thus there was no
assessment upon which to base transferee liability.
 So far as our research has disclosed, plaintiff presents an argument of first
impression. Arguably, it would be permissible to interpret Treas. Reg. § 301.6203-1 to
void a signed assessment if not signed by an authorized assessment officer. However, we
think such an approach is totally unwarranted. The distinction, as we see it, between
Brafman and the present case is that [*231] Brafman involved the facial invalidity of the
assessment; any person familiar with the requirement that an assessment certificate be
signed would at once recognize the invalidity of an unsigned assessment. In the present
case the assessments are at least de facto valid; no irregularity appears on the face of the
assessment certificates. Even accepting plaintiff's allegations as true, we think this would
establish only that the assessment was erroneously or illegally made, not that no
assessment was made. Provision for [**12] challenging an erroneous or illegal
assessment is provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a) (1). This section reads:

United States as defendant

(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, concurrent with the Court of
Claims, of:

(1) Any civil action against the United States for the recovery of any internal-revenue
tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or * * * any sum
alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected under the internal-
revenue laws * * *.

The above provision is the only one upon which plaintiff may establish a waiver of
immunity on behalf of the United States, yet this avails her little due to her failure to
make a timely administrative claim. Int. Rev. Code of 1954, § 7422(a) provides:

(a) No suit prior to filing claim for refund. -- No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in
any court for the recovery of any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or
illegally assessed or collected, or * * * of any sum alleged to have been excessive or in
any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed
with the Secretary or his delegate, [**13] according to the provisions of law in that
regard, and the regulations of the Secretary or his delegate established in pursuance
thereof.

In re Western Trading Company, 340 F.Supp. 1130 (1972)

We, nevertheless, conclude that the law applicable to ordinary bankruptcy is
inapplicable to this Chapter XI proceeding. The salutary purposes of Section 397 are
two-fold. It not only recognizes the need of taxing authorities for additional time to
determine and assess taxes which may be asserted [**8] late as a priority claim under
Section 64 of the Act, but it also fixes a time limit qualification upon the type of claims
which will be accorded such preferred treatment. While the bankruptcy court may be
required to reconsider its order of confirmation or to modify the plan of arrangement or
dismiss the proceeding on account of the impact of such a late filed claim (see In re
Gates, supra, 256 F. Supp. at page 4), it need do so only if the delayed claim is for a tax
"found to be owing" within one year of the filing of the petition. "Found to be owing," as
used in this section, means "assessed." The Internal Revenue Code provides for a specific
procedure for assessment (26 U.S.C. § 6203). An assessment is an administrative
determination of tax liability. Kurio v. United States, 281 F. Supp. 252 (S.D.Tex.1968);
United States v. Miller, 318 F.2d 637 (7th Cir. 1963). And until the assessment has been
made, the tax has not been found to be owing.

We note that the Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules appointed by the

[*1134] Chief Justice of the United States under the program of the Judicial Conference
of the United States is in accord with this interpretation. In the [**9] Preliminary Draft
of Proposed Bankruptcy Rules and Official Forms under Chapter XIII of the Bankruptcy
Act, September, 1971, the Committee of bankruptcy experts has proposed Rule 13-405,
as follows:

"Upon application accompanied by a proof of claim the court may allow the
following claims to participate in distributions under the plan:

"(a) Claims for taxes owing to the United States, or to any state, or any subdivision
thereof, at the time of the filing of a petition under Rule 13-103 or 13-104 which had not
been assessed prior to the date of confirmation of the plan, but which are assessed within
one year after the date of the filing of the petition.

"(b) Claims for taxes owing to the United States, or to any state, or any subdivision
thereof, after the filing of a petition under Rule 13-103 or 13-104 and which are assessed
while the case is pending * * *."

In this instance, we consider Section 397 of the Bankruptcy Act to be "an overriding
statement of federal policy" (Randall, supra, at p. 515, 91 S. Ct. at p. 993) to the effect
that a tax liability to participate in a plan of arrangement must have been assessed before
confirmation of the plan or within one year after the filing of the petition, or must have
become owing on account of the operations of the trustee, receiver or debtor in
possession (In re Gates, supra).

The instant claim for estimated 1969 corporate income tax deficiencies does not
qualify under any category. It has never been assessed, it has never "been found to be
owing." It is, thus, barred from participating in the plan of arrangement as a priority
claim. It is, nevertheless, not discharged (Section 78a (1) of the Act, 11 U.S.C. § 35). Its
collectibility as a non-priority claim may be left for future determination.

United States v. Coson, 286 F.2d 453

This brings us to the merits of the case. The court's opinion, which the Judge
treated as his findings, found there had been no notice or demand respecting these taxes
given to Coson, individually, prior to commencement of his action. He also found:
'Between March and August of 1955, plaintiff invested $ 31,000 in a newly organized
Las Vegas, Nevada, hotel and gambling establishment known as the 'Moulin Rouge,' and
obtained a 1.70 per cent interest therein. He reasonably and in good faith thought he was
investing as a limited partner in a limited partnership. The Moulin Rouge was note,
however, [**14] a limited partnership. Upon first ascertaining this, plaintiff promptly
mailed notices of renunciation.' n10 (169 F.Supp. 672)

All of this is significant in view of the fact that on December 27, 1956, when this
suit was started, no notice or demand concerning these taxes had been given to or served
upon Coson. This procedural prerequisite to the securing of a Government lien for such
taxes is made plain by the statute. See Detroit Bank v. United States, 317 U.S. 329, 335,
63 S.Ct. 297, 87 L.Ed. 304. § 6321 of Title 26 U.S.C. recites that the amount of taxes
shall be a lien upon the property of a person liable to pay the tax who 'neglects or refuses
to pay the same after demand.' n15 The procedure for making such demand is set forth in
§ 6303(a) of the same title as follows: 'Where it is not otherwise provided by this title,
the Secretary or his delegate shall, as soon as practicable, and within 60 days, after [**23]
the making of an assessment of a tax pursuant to § 6203, give notice to each person
liable for the unpaid tax, stating the amount and demanding payment thereof. * * *'

It will be noted that our decision here is based upon our holding that the
Government's lien was irregular, insufficient and valueless from a procedural standpoint
for failure to serve the statutory notice and demand in connection therewith and for
failure to comply with required procedures.

In developing that conclusion many circumstances tend to show that not only were
these required procedures not complied with but [**25] that Coson was not a taxpayer
and not liable for the tax to begin with. Whether that non-liability could also constitute
the basis for a suit of this kind, or for relief under § 2410(a) of Title 28, we need not here
decide. The recent case of Pipola v. Chicco, 2 Cir., 274 F.2d 909, 914, appears to give a
negative answer to that question. But that case agrees with what we hold here, that in an
action of the kind here involved plaintiff may attack the Government lien for taxes as
irregular or valueless 'from a procedural standpoint', and may raise the question whether
the Government 'complied with required procedures * * * or whether by error the
assessment was made against a taxpayer other than the one intended.' n16

VII. Cases Where Assessment Certificates Not In Evidence

Hughes, et al v. United States of America, 953 F.2d 531 (9th Cir., 1991)

In an attempt to establish the first prong of the Elias exception, the Hugheses first
argue that the IRS failed to make a valid assessment against them so that all current IRS
actions to collect from them are unlawful. Thus, the Hugheses argue, the IRS could never
succeed on the merits of its claim. We reject this argument.

The IRS submitted Certificates of Assessments and Payments (Form 4340) as proof
that assessments had been made. Official certificates, such as Form 4340, can constitute
proof of the [**8] fact that the assessments actually were made. See United States v.
Zolla, 724 F.2d 808, 810 (9th Cir.) (postal form 3877 certifying mailing of deficiency
notices and an IRS form certifying that taxes and failure-to-pay penalties had been
assessed are "official certificates" that "are highly probative, and are sufficient, in the
absence of contrary evidence, to establish that the notices and assessments were properly
made"), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 83 L. Ed. 2d 59, 105 S. Ct. 116 (1984); United States
v. Chila, 871 F.2d 1015, 1017-18 (11th Cir.) (Certificate of Assessments and Payments is
presumptive proof of a valid assessment), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975, 107 L. Ed. 2d 501,
110 S. Ct. 498 (1989). n2 Because Form 4340 is an official document which establishes
that assessments were made, and because the Hugheses have presented no contrary
evidence indicating that assessments were not made, the Hugheses' argument fails.

Finally, the Hugheses' allegation that the IRS never furnished them with a copy of the
record of assessment after being requested to do so also is insufficient to support a claim
under § 2410. 26 U.S.C. § 6203 requires that the Secretary provide a taxpayer with a copy
of the record of assessment if requested to do so. The Hugheses, however, have presented
no evidence that, at the time the various assessments were being made, they ever
requested a copy of the record of assessment. [**20] Because the Hugheses presented no
evidence that they made such a request, they cannot now argue that the IRS failed to
follow statutory procedures by neglecting to provide the Hugheses with the required
copy. n4 The Hugheses' § 2410 claim fails, therefore, because of the absence of any
evidence that the IRS's tax liens were procedurally defective. n5

United States of America v. Dixon, 672 F.Supp. 503

(USDC, Middle Dist. Ala., 1987)
The United States of America brought this action to recover unpaid federal income
taxes for the year 1975 in the amount of $ 200,997.02, including interest and penalties.
On May 22, 1987, the Government filed a motion for summary judgment supported by a
document entitled "Certificate of Assessments and Payments." The defendant, Julian
Dixon, has also filed a motion for summary judgment which raises two points: (1) that
the Internal Revenue Service did not follow the assessment procedures established in 26
U.S.C. § 6203 and 26 C.F.R. 301.6203-1; and (2) that a Notice of Deficiency was not sent
to him by certified or registered mail as required by 26 U.S.C. § 6212. Upon
consideration of the motions filed herein and the documents and affidavits attached
thereto, the Court has determined that the Government is entitled to summary judgment.

26 U.S.C. § 6203 provides that "the assessment shall be made by recording the
liability of the taxpayer in the office of the Secretary in accordance with rules or
regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Upon request of the taxpayer, the Secretary shall
furnish the taxpayer a copy of the record of the assessment."

26 C.F.R. § 301.6203-1 provides, in part, that "... the assessment shall be made by an
assessment officer signing the summary record of assessment. The summary record
through supporting records, shall provide identification of the taxpayer, the character of
the liability assessed, the taxable period, if applicable, and the amount of the assessment
... The date of the assessment is the date the summary record is signed by an assessment
officer ..." Both parties state in their briefs that this document is known as Form 23-C
within the Internal Revenue Service.

The defendant correctly contends that the basis of tax liability is the assessment. For a
tax liability to be duly collected, it must be first properly assessed. In order for a tax
deficiency to be assessed against a taxpayer, an assessment officer must sign and date a
Form 23-C. The defendant rests his argument entirely on the fact that the Government
has not been able to produce a copy of or the original of Form 23-C, and has, supposedly,
stipulated to its non-existence.

The Government argues that its failure to produce Form 23-C is not fatal to its case.
First, the Government states that it stipulated only to the fact that it did not have the
original or a copy of Form 23-C in its possession. The Government originally stated that
the IRS keeps Form 23-C in its files for only three years, after which it is routinely sent to
the Federal Records Center to be stored for thirty years. The Government's attorney has
since learned that this is the present procedure, but that in 1979 when the assessment was
entered, the IRS kept these forms for six years, nine months, after which they were
routinely destroyed. Accordingly, the defendant is correct that the Government does not
have in its possession the Form 23-C.

The Government argues, however, that it does not need to produce a copy of Form 23-C
in order to satisfy its burden of proof. The Government has attached a copy of a
"Certificate of Assessments and Payments" which is signed by an IRS officer certifying
that it is a true transcript of all the assessments, penalties, interest, and payments on
record for the defendant. This document reflects that on April 15, 1976 the defendant
filed a tax return claiming and paying $ 118,728.45 in taxes. This document also reflects
that the defendant was audited and assessed a deficiency of $ 159,871.02 in unpaid taxes,
$ 7,993.55 in negligence penalty, and $ 34,247.44 in interest on July 23, 1979. n1

Accordingly, this Court accepts the document "Certificate of Assessments and

Payments" submitted by the Government as presumptive proof of a valid assessment.
Given that the defendant has produced no evidence to counter this presumption, the Court
is satisfied that the Government has established that the claimed tax liability was properly
assessed against the defendant.

In the absence of any direct evidence contradicting the Government's position, the
presumption of official regularity controls. "The presumption of regularity supports the
official acts of public officers and, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts
presume that they have properly discharged their official duties." (Emphasis added)
United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc., 272 U.S. 1, 71 L. Ed. 131, 47 S. Ct. 1 (1926)
and United States v. Ahrens, 530 F.2d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1976).

Huff v. United States of America, 10 F.3d 1440 (9th Cir., 1993)

The district court ruled erroneously that count II did not present a procedural challenge to
a tax lien. However, count II alleges that the IRS failed properly to assess taxes against
the Huffs and that the IRS failed to respond to the Huffs' request for a copy of an
assessment under § 6203. See 26 C.F.R. § 301.6203-1 (1992) (indicating that § 6203
requires the IRS to send the taxpayer "a copy of the pertinent parts of the assessment
which set forth the name of the taxpayer, the date of assessment, the character of the
liability assessed, the taxable period, if applicable, and the amounts assessed" if the
taxpayer makes a request for a copy of the assessment pursuant to § 6203).

Generally, courts have held that IRS Form 4340 provides at least presumptive evidence
that a tax has been validly assessed under § 6203. See Farr, 990 F.2d at 454; Geiselman
v. United States, 961 F.2d 1, 5-6 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 121 L. Ed. 2d 191, 113 S. Ct. 261
(1992); Rocovich v. United States, 933 F.2d 991, 994 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("Certificates of
Assessments and Payments [are] routinely used to prove that a tax assessment has in fact
been made."); United States v. Chila, 871 F.2d 1015, 1017-18 (11th Cir.), cert. denied,
493 U.S. 975, 107 L. Ed. 2d 501, 110 S. Ct. 498 (1989); United States v. Miller, 318 F.2d
637, 638-39 (7th Cir. 1963). Here, however, the IRS seeks to rely solely on these forms
to prove not only that an assessment had been validly made, but that the taxpayer had
been provided with a copy of the assessment as per Treasury Regulation § 301.6203-1.
We are unaware of any authority indicating that these forms standing alone constitute
evidence for the latter proposition. Indeed, no entry on the form contains any information
in this regard.

Moreover, in Farr this court ruled that Forms 4340 are merely presumptive, not
conclusive, evidence that the IRS has complied with § 6203. Farr, 990 F.2d at 454. The
court ruled that the fact that the taxpayer claimed not to have received certain notices
precluded the court from granting judgment against the taxpayer in that case. Id. Here,
the Huffs similarly claim that they never received any Form 4340 in response to their
request for a copy of their assessments. While the government may have proved that
Forms 4340 existed for the Huffs for the 1982 tax year, the record is devoid of any
indication that the Huffs were provided with copies of these forms in response to their
request for a copy of their assessments.

In addition, some of the Forms 4340 provided by the government to support the grant of
summary judgment in this case appear defective. Courts have indicated that a Form 4340
is adequate to prove a valid assessment if it lists the "23C date," indicating the date on
which the actual assessment was made. n5 See Geiselman, 961 F.2d at 5-6 (indicating
that the government could prove a valid assessment by providing a Form 4340 instead of
a Form 23C, the actual assessment forms, because the Form 4340 listed the 23C dates);
Brewer v. United States, 764 F. Supp. 309, 315-16 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (holding that an issue
of fact exists regarding the method of assessment when the IRS relies on Forms 4340 that
do not list 23C dates). Here, the 4340 Form for Maurice Huff's 1982 tax year did not list
any 23C dates. Accordingly, we conclude that the IRS could not rely solely on those
forms to prove that Mr. Huff's tax was validly assessed.
Given the defect in the Forms 4340 and the fact that the record contains no evidence
indicating that the Huffs received copies of their assessments pursuant to their request
under § 6203, we conclude there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the
IRS has complied with the requirements of § 6203. See Farr, 990 F.2d at 454;
Geiselman, 961 F.2d at 5-6; Brewer, 764 F. Supp. at 315-16. Accordingly, we reverse
the district court's grant of summary judgment as to count II.